DOCSLIB.ORG

Health Surveillance Indicators: Cardiovascular Disease

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Health Surveillance Indicators: Cardiovascular Disease HEALTH SURVEILLANCE INDICATORS: CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE Public Health Relevance Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is among the most common causes of illness and death in Canada. CVD refers to diseases of the circulatory system, which includes the heart and blood vessels. The six types of CVD are ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, heart failure, rheumatic heart disease, and congenital heart disease. Ischemic heart disease, which is the most common cause of heart attack, and cerebrovascular disease, also known as stroke, are the most common CVDs and the most affected by behavioural risk factors. Behavioural risk factors for CVD include smoking, lack of exercise, and a diet high in fatty foods and salt and/or low in fruit and vegetables. Additional risk factors include overweight/obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, and stress. Highlights 1. CVD hospitalization and mortality rates in Toronto decreased from 2003 to the most recent year of data. 2. The CVD hospitalization rate in Toronto was similar to the rest of the Greater Toronto Area and lower than the rest of Ontario. 3. Willowdale Don Mills and West Scarborough had lower hospitalization and mortality rates for CVD than Toronto as a whole. 4. Lower income groups in Toronto had higher CVD hospitalization rates compared to the highest income group. Trends Over Time CVD hospitalization and mortality rates in Toronto decreased from 2003 to the most recent year of data. Figure 1 shows age-standardized CVD hospitalization and mortality rates per 100,000 people from 2003 to the most recent year of data. Both hospitalization and mortality rates decreased over time in Toronto. The hospitalization rate decreased from over 800 per 100,000 in 2003 to 642 in 2013. The mortality rate decreased from 164 per 100,000 in 2003 to 115 in 2010. Figure 1: Age-standardized CVD Hospitalization and Mortality Rates per 100,000 People from 2003 to 2013* 900 800 Hospitalization 700 600 500 400 Cases per100,000 300 200 Mortality 100 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year * Data is presented to most recent year available. Hospitalization includes data to 2013, and mortality to 2010. Error bars ( ) represent 95% confidence intervals. Data Sources: see Data Notes. Health Surveillance Indicators: Cardiovascular Disease | Toronto Public Health Page 2 of 11 Regional Comparisons CVD hospitalization rate in Toronto was similar to the rest of the Greater Toronto Area and lower than the rest of Ontario. Figure 2 shows age-standardized CVD hospitalization and mortality for Toronto compared to the rest of Ontario (Ontario excluding Toronto), the rest of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA excluding Toronto), and the health units in Ontario with the highest and lowest rates. The hospitalization rate was significantly lower in Toronto compared to the rest of Ontario. nd Compared to the rest of the GTA, Toronto was not significantly different. Toronto ranked 32 of th the 36 health units in Ontario, with the 36 ranked health unit having the lowest (most favourable) rate. The hospitalization rate was significantly higher than the health unit with the lowest rate. Mortality was significantly lower in Toronto than in the rest of Ontario. Compared to the rest of rd the GTA, Toronto was not significantly different. Toronto ranked 33 of the 36 health units in th Ontario, with the 36 ranked health unit having the lowest (most favourable) rate. Figure 2: Age-Standardized CVD Hospitalization and Mortality Rates per 100,000, Selected Regions in Ontario Hospitalization, 2013 Mortality, 2010 1,330 195 Highest Ontario Health Highest Ontario Health Unit, 191.1 Unit, 1,278.1 Ontario excluding Toronto, 136.8 Ontario excluding Toronto, 730.2 GTA excluding Toronto, 114.5 Toronto, 651.1 GTA excluding Toronto, 641.9 Toronto, 110.7 Lowest Ontario Health Lowest Ontario Health Unit, 533.7 Unit, 102.0 500 95 0 0 Data Sources: see Data Notes. Health Surveillance Indicators: Cardiovascular Disease | Toronto Public Health Page 3 of 11 Toronto Neighbourhood Comparisons Willowdale Don Mills and West Scarborough had lower hospitalization and mortality rates for CVD than Toronto as a whole. Table 1 shows age-standardized CVD hospitalization and mortality rates for Toronto Public Health's Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention (CDIP) Service Delivery Areas. When compared to Toronto as a whole, Significantly lower rates were found in: • East Scarborough (mortality) • Toronto Centre (hospitalization) • West Scharborough (hospitalization and lower mortality) • Willowdale Don Mills (hospitalization and lower mortality) Significantly higher rates were found in: • Danforth East York (hospitalization and mortality) • East Scarborough (mortality) • Humber Downsview (hospitalization) • Rexdale Etobicoke (hospitalization) • York South Humber (hospitalization and mortality) Table 1: Age-Standardized CVD Hospitalization and Mortality Rates per 100,000, by Service Delivery Areas*, Toronto Service Delivery Area Hospitalization Mortality (2011 to 2013 combined) (2008 to 2010 combined) Rexdale Etobicoke 752.6 H 118.0 York South Humber 726.9 H 123.6 H Humber Downsview 790.5 H 114.5 Willowdale Don Mills 612.2 L 92.0 L Toronto Centre 646.6 L 112.7 Danforth East York 738.3 H 140.2 H West Scarborough 599.9 L 99.2 L East Scarborough 635.8 L 122.9 H Toronto 670.5 112.2 H Significantly higher than the Toronto total indicating a less favourable result for that area. L Significantly lower than the Toronto total indicating a more favourable result for that area. * Toronto Public Health's service delivery areas for Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention. Data Sources: see Data Notes. Health Surveillance Indicators: Cardiovascular Disease | Toronto Public Health Page 4 of 11 Map 1 shows age-standardized CVD hospitalization rates for Toronto's 140 neighbourhoods for 2011 to 2013 combined. Hospitalization rates ranged from 406.9 to 1054.4 per 100,000. Midtown, North York, central Etobicoke, and northwestern Scarborough had clusters of neighbourhoods with lower CVD hospitalization rates than Toronto as a whole. Some neighbourhoods with significantly lower rates included: • Agincourt North • Rosedale-Moore Park • Kingsway South • Steeles • Milliken • Yonge-St.Clair Northwest Etobicoke and southwest Scarborough had clusters of neighbourhoods with higher hospitalization rates than Toronto as a whole. Some neighbourhoods with significantly higher rates included: • Clairlea-Birchmount • Mount Olive-Silverstone-Jamestown • Humber Summit • South Parkdale • Moss Park • Thistletown-Beaumond Heights Map 1: Age-Standardized CVD Hospitalization Rates by Neighbourhood, Toronto, 2011 to 2013 combined Health Surveillance Indicators: Cardiovascular Disease | Toronto Public Health Page 5 of 11 Map 2 shows age-standardized CVD mortality rates by Toronto's 140 neighbourhoods, for 2008 to 2010 combined. Mortality rates ranged from 60.1 to 224.1 per 100,000. Midtown and northeastern areas of Toronto had clusters of neighbourhoods with lower CVD mortality rates than Toronto as a whole. Some neighbourhoods with significantly lower rates included: • Bayview Village • St. Andrew-Windfields • Milliken • Steeles • Rosedale-Moore Park • Willowdale East Downtown by the waterfront and southeastern Scarborough had clusters of neighbourhoods with higher mortality rates than Toronto as a whole. Some neighbourhoods with significantly higher rates included: • Beechborough-Greenbrook • East End-Danforth • Birchcliffe-Cliffside • Moss Park • Blake-Jones • South Parkdale Map 2: Age-Standardized CVD Mortality Rates by Neighbourhood, Toronto, 2008 to 2010 combined Health Surveillance Indicators: Cardiovascular Disease | Toronto Public Health Page 6 of 11 Socio-Demographics Lower income groups had higher CVD hospitalization rates compared to the highest income group. Table 2 shows CVD rates by sex. Males had significantly higher hospital and mortality rates compared to females. Table 2: Age-Standardized CVD Hospitalization and Mortality Rates per 100,000 by Sex, Toronto Hospitalization Mortality Sex (2013) (2010) Male 846.5 H 148.4 H Female 471.4 L 87.9 L H Significantly higher than the other sex group indicating a less favourable result. L Significantly lower than the other sex group indicating a more favourable result. Data Sources: see Data Notes. Table 3 shows CVD rates for each of three age groups. Hospitalization and mortality rates increased as age increased. Table 3: CVD Hospitalization and Mortality Rates per 100,000 by Age Group, Toronto Hospitalization Mortality Age Group (2013) (2010) 20 to 39 years 89.2 4.2 40 to 64 years 728.7 67.7 65 plus years 4070.8 1062.1 Data Sources: see Data Notes. Health Surveillance Indicators: Cardiovascular Disease | Toronto Public Health Page 7 of 11 Table 4 shows the age-standardized CVD hospitalization and mortality rates per 100,000 people by income quintile. Quintile 1 includes areas in Toronto with the highest percent of people living below the low income measure (LIM). Quintile 5 includes areas in Toronto with the lowest percent of people living below the LIM. People in lower income groups (Quintiles 1, 2, 3 and 4) had significantly higher hospitalization rates compared to the highest income group (Quintile 5). The mortality rates in Quintiles 1, 3 and 4 were also significantly higher compared to Quintile 5. Table 4: Age-standardized CVD Hospitalization and Mortality Rates per 100,000 by Income Quintile, Toronto Hospitalization Mortality Income Level (2011 to 2013 Combined) (2008 to 2010 Combined) Quintile 1 (lowest income) 761.2 H 127.2 H Quintile 2 643.8 H 99.8 Quintile 3 691.7 H 120.1H Quintile 4 676.9 H 114.4 H Quintile 5 (highest income) 605.3 104.3 H Significantly higher than Quintile 5, the higher income group, indicating a less favourable result. Data Sources: see Data Notes. Health Surveillance Indicators: Cardiovascular Disease | Toronto Public Health Page 8 of 11 Data Notes Notes • Significant differences were estimated using overlapping confidence intervals. Although this method is conservative (α ~< 0.01) and most appropriate when comparing mutually exclusive groups, it was chosen as an objective means of making conclusions on population-based data.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • City of Toronto — Detached Homes Average Price by Percentage Increase: January to June 2016
    City of Toronto — Detached Homes Average price by percentage increase: January to June 2016 C06 – $1,282,135 C14 – $2,018,060 1,624,017 C15 698,807 $1,649,510 972,204 869,656 754,043 630,542 672,659 1,968,769 1,821,777 781,811 816,344 3,412,579 763,874 $691,205 668,229 1,758,205 $1,698,897 812,608 *C02 $2,122,558 1,229,047 $890,879 1,149,451 1,408,198 *C01 1,085,243 1,262,133 1,116,339 $1,423,843 E06 788,941 803,251 Less than 10% 10% - 19.9% 20% & Above * 1,716,792 * 2,869,584 * 1,775,091 *W01 13.0% *C01 17.9% E01 12.9% W02 13.1% *C02 15.2% E02 20.0% W03 18.7% C03 13.6% E03 15.2% W04 19.9% C04 13.8% E04 13.5% W05 18.3% C06 26.9% E05 18.7% W06 11.1% C07 29.2% E06 8.9% W07 18.0% *C08 29.2% E07 10.4% W08 10.9% *C09 11.4% E08 7.7% W09 6.1% *C10 25.9% E09 16.2% W10 18.2% *C11 7.9% E10 20.1% C12 18.2% E11 12.4% C13 36.4% C14 26.4% C15 31.8% Compared to January to June 2015 Source: RE/MAX Hallmark, Toronto Real Estate Board Market Watch *Districts that recorded less than 100 sales were discounted to prevent the reporting of statistical anomalies R City of Toronto — Neighbourhoods by TREB District WEST W01 High Park, South Parkdale, Swansea, Roncesvalles Village W02 Bloor West Village, Baby Point, The Junction, High Park North W05 W03 Keelesdale, Eglinton West, Rockcliffe-Smythe, Weston-Pellam Park, Corso Italia W10 W04 York, Glen Park, Amesbury (Brookhaven), Pelmo Park – Humberlea, Weston, Fairbank (Briar Hill-Belgravia), Maple Leaf, Mount Dennis W05 Downsview, Humber Summit, Humbermede (Emery), Jane and Finch W09 W04 (Black Creek/Glenfield-Jane
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Centre Community Action Plan Looks to Provide a Vision for the Area Well Into the Next 10-15 Years
    Moss Park/The Garden District Office of Glen Murray, MPP Toronto Centre in collaboration with Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, Ward 27 Toronto Centre – Community Action Plan March 2012 Moss Park/The Garden District Table of Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 2 2. Why a Community Action Plan?................................................................................ 3 The Components of the Community Action Plan...................................................... 3 3. Guiding Principles...................................................................................................... 4 4. Objectives of the CAP ................................................................................................ 4 Government Objectives............................................................................................. 4 Community Objectives .............................................................................................. 5 Institutional and Agency Objectives.......................................................................... 5 Financial Objectives................................................................................................... 5 5. Riding Strengths and Challenges ............................................................................... 6 Toronto Centre: A Vibrant Civil Society..................................................................... 6 Access to Education..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Hidden Epidemic a Report on Child and Family Poverty in Toronto
    THE HIDDEN EPIDEMIC A Report on Child and Family Poverty in Toronto The hidden epidemic A Report on Child and Family Poverty in Toronto November 2014 1 Acknowledgements This report was researched and written by a working group consisting of: Michael Polanyi Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and Alliance for a Poverty-Free Toronto Lesley Johnston Social Planning Toronto Anita Khanna Family Service Toronto/Ontario Campaign 2000 Said Dirie Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and Alliance for a Poverty-Free Toronto michael kerr Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change and Alliance for a Poverty-Free Toronto Research and data analysis support provided by the City of Toronto is gratefully acknowledged. Financial support was provided by the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and the Children’s Aid Foundation’s Community Initiatives Program. Editing and design support was provided by Tilman Lewis and Peter Grecco. We thank Ann Fitzpatrick, Christa Freiler, Skylar Maharaj, Laurel Rothman and Alex Tranmer for their review of and assistance with the paper. THE HIDDEN EPIDEMIC A Report on Child and Family Poverty in Toronto Contents Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 3 2. Current Levels of Child and Family Poverty in Toronto and Beyond 6 3. Which Toronto Children Are Affected by Poverty? 9 Geography 9 Ethno-racial Background 12 Indigenous Communities 13 Immigration or Citizenship Status 13 Disability 13 Family Structure 13 4. Growing Up in poverty – Reality and impacts on children in Toronto 14 Access to Nutrition 14 Access to Housing 16 Access to Education 17 Access to Recreation 19 5. Underlying Causes of Family Poverty 20 Inadequate Employment Income 20 Inadequate Income Supports and Community Services 22 Lack of Access to Affordable Public Services 24 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Community Housing, Moss Park Multi-Residential
    Multi-Residential Toronto Community Housing, Moss Park Photos of the SolarWall ® and SolarDuct ® systems at Moss Park in Toronto, Ontario Background Solution Moss Park is a community of affordable housing buildings Each of the three towers that make up Moss Park were located in downtown Toronto. It is also a Tower Renewal outfitted with the SolarWall ® air heating technology. Two site, as designated by the City of Toronto, which refers to of the towers had custom designed 3,388 ft 2 (315 m 2) a city-wide program aimed at improving Toronto's con- SolarWall systems, and the other tower a 480 ft 2 (45 m 2) crete apartment towers and surrounding neighborhoods. roof-mount SolarDuct ® system comprised of 20 SolarDuct units. The SolarWall technology was incorporated into the Multi-residential high-rise buildings are excellent candi- building’s mechanical system to compliment the existing dates for SolarWall ® air heating systems because they HRV system. required continuous ventilation air in the hallways and common-areas. In addition to the renewable energy The systems should offset 85 tons of CO2 each year, benefits, with these types of retrofit applications, the which translates into a permanent GHG reduction of installation of the wall-mount SolarWall ® system means 2,250 tons over the 30-year lifespan of the systems. that these buildings have effectively been re-clad, thus reaping a second building envelope benefit. Results Also, the system will provide other benefits; including a The SolarWall air heating projects will improve the opera- significant contribution toward achieving Toronto’s sus- tions of the buildings and will permanently decrease the tainability goals of reducing GHG emissions and creating ongoing operating costs associated with energy use.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line
    EX9.1 Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line As directed by City Council in April 2019, City and TTC staff have assessed the Province’s proposed Ontario Line. The details of this assessment are provided in this attachment. 1. Project Summary 1.1. Project Description The Ontario Line was included as part of the 2019 Ontario Budget1 as a transit project that will cover similar study areas as the Relief Line South and North, as well as a western extension. The proposed project is a 15.5-kilometre higher-order transit line with 15 stations, connecting from Exhibition GO station to Line 5 at Don Mills Road and Eglinton Avenue East, near the Science Centre station, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Ontario Line Proposal (source: Metrolinx IBC) Since April 2019, technical working groups comprising staff from the City, TTC, Metrolinx, Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Transportation met regularly to understand alignment and station location options being considered for the Ontario 1 http://budget.ontario.ca/2019/contents.html Attachment 4 - Assessment of Ontario Line Page 1 of 20 Line. Discussions also considered fleet requirements, infrastructure design criteria, and travel demand modelling. Metrolinx prepared an Initial Business Case (IBC) that was publicly posted on July 25, 2019.2 The IBC compared the Ontario Line and Relief Line South projects against a Business As Usual scenario. The general findings by Metrolinx were that "both Relief Line South and Ontario Line offer significant improvements compared to a Business As Usual scenario, generating $3.4 billion and $7.4 billion worth of economic benefits, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Regent Park and Cabbagetown
    NOTE TO USERS Page(s) not included in the original manuscript are unavailable from the author or university. The manuscript was microfilmed as received. This reproduction is the best copy available UMI EXPLORING THE MARGIN THE BORDERS BETWEEN REGENT PARK AND CABBAGETOWN Luisa Veronis A thesis submitled in confomiity with the qubeme- foithodeg~ofMn@erof MS Gndwr oepmmtof G#OImy ünîwwsity of Tomto Q Copyright by Luise Vmnis 1999 National Libraiy Bibliotheque nationale du Canada A uisitions and Acquisitions et ~&gra~hicSeMces seMces bibliographiques The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive licence aliowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distniute or seU reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microfonn, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Abstract Exploilng the Margin: the Borders ktween Ragent Park and Cabbagetown Master of Arts 1999 Luisa Veronis Graduate Department of Geography University of Toronto This thesis explores the meaning and the usefulness of the spatial metaphor 'margin' in urban social geography. I anaîyze a downtown neighborhood of Toronto in light of the modemist.
    [Show full text]
  • Moss Park Neighbourhood Profile Urban Agriculture
    EXPLORATION & ANALYSIS ANALYSIS HUNGER IN THE CITY Relieving Homelessness in Moss Park with Accessible Urban Agriculture MOSS PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE DARKER COLOURS REPRESENT HIGHER OCCURANCE TORONTO, ONTARIO St. James Cabbage DESIGN INTENT DARKER COLOURS REPRESENT HIGHER OCCURANCE NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE Town town St. James Regent Park Cabbage Moss Park Town town East of Yonge ThisEast of project is an exploratory look into Moss Park, a neighbourhood of Toronto that faces significant development pressures Yonge Regent Park NEIGHBORHOUDS COMMUNITY SPACE GREEN SPACE HEALTH PROVIDERS and socialMoss Park issues. With some of the highest rates of unemployment and population density in the city and a significant homeless population, it presented itself as a perfect case study to explore the role of urban agriculture as a means to create safeNEIGHBORHOUDS and accessible areasCOMMUNITY where SPACE individualsGREEN SPACE can improveHEALTH their PROVIDERS food security, social connections, employability and food literacy. The project explores different forms of urban agriculture in locations which the community has identified as under- used. By creating green connections and accessible gardens the goal is to create a design that is available and accessible to all people physically and socially. YOUTH POPULATION TOTAL POPULATION SOCIAL ASSIATANCE STUDENT NUTRITION MOSSYOUTH POPULATION PARKTOTAL POPULATION SOCIAL ASSIATANCE STUDENT NUTRITIONGOALS AND OBJECTIVES SOCIALGOALS & OBJECTIVES SHERBOURNE HEALTH PARKS REGENT PARK REDEVELOPMENT MOSS PARK
    [Show full text]
  • Low Other* Dwelling Density Availability of Destinations
    21 24 116 130 2 35 36 50 49 48 27 131 22 34 37 117 129 3 25 51 52 47 46 4 132 26 38 53 118 1 5 33 40 128 135 134 23 39 45 6 29 113 28 32 105 133 31 41 42 119 126 137 7 8 30 103 127 136 115 112 108 102 43 125 100 138 140 11 10 110 109 101 99 44 9 111 107 104 56 55 139 106 124 Dwelling Availability of 91 92 97 54 120 density destinations 13 90 94 96 58 123 15 89 98 57 High - High 12 114 93 59 60 14 88 95 67 61 121 83 74 66 High - Low 87 80 79 71 68 69 62 16 75 64 122 86 84 81 78 76 65 Low - High 7372 63 85 70 Low - Low 20 17 82 77 Other* 18 19 0 2.5 5 km * Indicates DB belonged to the middle quintile of Neighbourhoods dwelling density and/or availability of destinations 1 West Humber-Clairville 25 Glenfield-Jane Heights 49 Bayview Woods-Steeles 73 Moss Park 96 Casa Loma 121 Oakridge 2 Mount Olive-Silverstone- 26 Downsview-Roding-CFB 50 Newtonbrook East 74 North St. James Town 97 Yonge-St.Clair 122 Birchcliffe-Cliffside Jamestown 27 York University Heights 51 Willowdale East 75 Church-Yonge Corridor 98 Rosedale-Moore Park 123 Cliffcrest 3 Thistletown-Beaumond Heights 28 Rustic 52 Bayview Village 76 Bay Street Corridor 99 Mount Pleasant East 124 Kennedy Park 4 Rexdale-Kipling 29 Maple Leaf 53 Henry Farm 77 Waterfront Communities- 100 Yonge-Eglinton 125 Ionview 5 Elms-Old Rexdale 30 Brookhaven-Amesbury 54 O'Connor-Parkview The Island 101 Forest Hill South 126 Dorset Park 6 Kingsview Village-The Westway 31 Yorkdale-Glen Park 55 Thorncliffe Park 78 Kensington-Chinatown 102 Forest Hill North 127 Bendale 7 Willowridge-Martingrove-Richview 32 Englemount-Lawrence
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Neighbourhoods in Toronto with the Highest Total Crime Experience Vastly Different Crime Rates
    Ten Neighbourhoods in Toronto with the Highest Total Crime Experience Vastly Different Crime Rates∗ Marginalized communnities experience different crime rates due to continued discrimination. Rachael Lam 29 January 2021 Abstract Neighbourhood Crime Rate data was pulled from the City of Toronto Open Portal to analyze neigh- bourhoods that were most affected by crime and how crime rates have changed over time. Although crime rates have risen between 2014-2019, certain neighbourhoods experience higher crime rates in the Greater Toronto Area. Further literature reviews of neighbourhoods who experience higher crime rates are also found to be economically disadvantaged communities. This data, without a further analysis and understanding of socioeconomic circumstances, could lead to higher police surveillance and further punitive action towards marginalized communities. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Data 2 3 Results 4 4 Discussion 4 4.1 Bay Street Corridor . .7 4.2 Moss Park . .7 4.3 Kensington-Chinatown . .7 4.4 Waterfront Communities-The Island . .7 4.5 Comparison . .7 5 Conclusion 8 References 9 ∗Code and data are available at: https://github.com/rachaellam/Toronto-Crime-Rates.git. 1 1 Introduction In 1971, Richard Nixon launched the War on Drugs followed by Ronald Reagan signing the Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1986, initiating decades of increase police presence and highly punitive sentences. Public opinion shifted in support for harsher punishment leading to a massive increase in law-and-order government agencies (Marable 2015). Crime rate statistics were largely misconstrued to further push anti-crime policies that poorly affected low-income communities and communities of colour. These policies led to mass surveillance under the guise of safety and protection, continuing the cycle of oppression that marginalized communities face (Windsor, Dunlap, and Armour 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Toronto Central LHIN Sub-Region Quality Improvement Approach: Mid-East Version 1.0 – July 2017
    ` Overview of the Toronto Central LHIN Sub-Region Quality Improvement Approach: Mid-East Version 1.0 – July 2017 1 Table of Contents Background: Toronto Central LHIN sub-region planning approach 3 Starting point: Quality improvement 4 Planning exercises 4 Sub-region profiles: 4 Neighbourhood level profiles: 7 Prioritizing where to start: 9 Detailed analysis 12 Capturing human experience: No data without stories, and no stories without data 15 Summary of process taken: 16 Snapshot of sub-region initial opportunity areas: 16 Next Steps: Supporting Collaborative Quality Improvement Planning (C-QIPs) 17 Future Vision 19 2 Background: Toronto Central LHIN sub-region planning approach The Toronto Central LHIN has established 5 sub-region planning areas to serve as the focal point for population based planning, service alignment and integration, partnership building, and quality improvement. We recognize and celebrate the diversity of our Toronto communities and we acknowledge that the path to improving health will be different for the diverse communities and population groups throughout the City. By honing in on five smaller, more manageable geographies, we can look at communities on a neighbourhood by neighbourhood basis, and plan care more appropriately. In May and June of 2016, we held an inaugural cross-sector meeting within each sub-region planning area. The purpose of these meetings was to bring all types of providers together, with our common element being the communities and people that we serve. This group of local providers within a sub-region planning area is our Local Collaborative. Why are Local Collaboratives important? No one organization or individual has the full set of resources, expertise, and capacity to ensure the best possible outcomes – physical, mental, and social – for all individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Tocore Downtown Parks – Phase 1 Background Report
    DOWNTOWN PARKS TOcore PHASE I BACKGROUND REPORT MARCH 2016 PARKS, FORESTRY & RECREATION DOWNTOWN PARKS PHASE I BACKGROUND REPORT 1 DOWNTOWN PARKS PHASE I BACKGROUND REPORT CONTENTS Preface -page 1 1. Toronto’s Downtown Parks -page 3 2. Parks Planning and Development Challenges and Opportunities -page 8 2.1. Acquisition and Provision -page 8 2.2. Design and Build -page 12 2.3. Maintenance and Operations -page 13 3. Downtown Park User Opinions and Behaviour -page 14 3.1. Parks Asset and Use Survey, Summer 2015 -page 14 3.2. Park User Surveys -page 16 3.3. Park Permit Trends Downtown -page 17 3.4. TOcore Phase I Consultation -page 18 3.5. Dogs in Parks -page 18 3.6. Homelessness in Parks -page 18 4. A Healthy Urban Forest -page 19 5. Emerging Priorities -page 20 TOcore Downtown Parks -page 21 DOWNTOWN PARKS TOcore PHASE I BACKGROUND REPORT Parks are essential to making Toronto an attractive place to live, work, and visit. Toronto’s parks offer a broad range of outdoor leisure and recreation opportunities, transportation routes, and places for residents to interact with nature, and with one another. Parks also provide important economic benefits: they attract tourists and businesses, and help to build a healthy workforce. They provide shade, produce oxygen, and store stormwater. Parks are necessary elements for healthy individuals, communities, and natural habitat. Toronto Parks Plan 2013-2017 Figure 1. HTO Park in the summer Together with City Planning Division and Transportation Services Division, Parks, Forestry & Recreation Division (PFR) are developing a Downtown Parks and Public Realm (P+PR) Plan as part of the TOcore study (www.toronto.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons and Impacts
    BREAKING NEW GROUND LESSONS AND IMPACTS from the Weston Family Parks Challenge 119-401 Richmond Street West Toronto, ON M5V 3A8 Park People is an independent charity that builds strong communities by animating [email protected] and improving parks, placing them at the t: (416) 583-5776 heart of life in the city. www.parkpeople.ca Acknowledgements Park People would like to thank The W. Garfield Weston Foundation and Ontario Trillium Foundation for their leadership, generousity, dedication, and innovation in funding the Weston Family Parks Challenge and this report. We learned a lot through administering this program and the lessons and impacts found in this report will help not only us, but other non-profits, funders and city parks departments working in green spaces, to deliver better programs and funding for community partners who are improving and animating green spaces. We would also like to specifically thank Jennifer Canham, Cynthia McQueen, Clare Nolan, and Thea Silver for reviewing the report. The opinions expressed in this report are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the view of The W. Garfield Weston Foundation and the Ontario Trillium Foundation. An agency of the Government of Ontario. Un organisme du gouvernement de l’Ontario. The W. Garfield Weston Foundation is a private The Ontario Trillium Foundation is an agency of Canadian family foundation established in the the Government of Ontario, and one of Canada’s 1950s by Willard Garfield Weston, his wife Reta, largest granting foundations. With a budget of and their children. Today the Foundation directs over $136 million, OTF awards grants to some the majority of its funds to projects in the fields of 1,000 projects every year to build healthy and land conservation, neuroscience, education, and vibrant Ontario communities.
    [Show full text]